Is There a Dark Side of Ambidexterity? Implications of Dueling Sales and Service Orientations

Abstract

This study examines how employee customer and selling orientations, and their interaction, impact frontline employees’ (FLEs) pursuit of service and sales-related performance outcomes. Applying a job demands-resources lens, we advance a model that explores service-sales ambidexterity at the individual level. Polynomial regression and response surface analysis are used to assess how varying levels of customer and selling orientation relate to FLE outcomes. Our findings indicate that commitment to service quality and sales performance are highest when employees are singularly focused on one or the other. However, when required to be ambidextrous—that is, when employees must maintain a dual focus—these outcomes begin to suffer as employees are unclear of their role in the organization. While ambidextrous employees experience role conflict, they are also more likely to use creativity in their selling activities. These positive and negative consequences of ambidexterity underscore both the potential risks and rewards of a dual orientation on the front line.

Keywords

service-sales ambidexterity customer orientation selling orientation job demands-resources role conflict creativity

Organizations today are expecting more from their frontline employees (FLEs) than ever before (Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011). In light of the evidence that service quality (Bowen and Schneider 2014) and revenue generation (Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013) both facilitate competitive advantage, many firms are expecting FLEs to achieve both. As a result, firms are cultivating service-sales ambidexterity as a solution for frontline performance (Evans, Arnold, and Grant 1999; Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter 2012). While service-sales ambidexterity has the potential to benefit the organization, the approach can also take a toll on FLEs. Forced to balance customer acquisition and customer retention, employees can be “…stretched thin by an increasing number of responsibilities competing for their time and attention…” (Schmidt and Dolis 2009, p. 678). Yet, there is surprisingly limited empirical research exploring the effectiveness of service-sales ambidexterity on the front line (e.g., Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter 2012; Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013). How is this balancing act impacting sales and service-related outcomes, and what impacts is it having on the frontline role?

The job demands-resources (JD-R) perspective can shed light on an increasingly complex frontline role (Jones et al. 2005). This perspective conceptualizes job attributes and working conditions as falling within two overarching categories—job demands and job resources (Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010). Job resources help employees achieve their performance objectives. Job demands, in contrast, require sustained effort and deplete employee resources (Bakker and Demerouti 2014) and have repeatedly been shown to predict exhaustion (Xanthopoulou et al. 2007) and diminished work performance (Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke 2004). This perspective highlights an important tension that has yet to be considered in the ambidexterity literature. On one hand, ambidexterity has a bright side; namely, it has been recognized as a potential solution for achieving productivity gains by focusing on both service and sales outcomes (Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013). On the other hand, there may be a dark side associated with ambidexterity. Specifically, the increasing job demands associated with balancing and maintaining a dual emphasis will heavily tax the available resources of FLEs, limiting performance achievements. Consider FLEs who exhibit high levels of both customer and selling orientations. They will dedicate time and resources toward service-focused activities as well as sales-focused activities. Typical of a customer orientation, they will engage in behaviors that drive customer satisfaction, such as checking in on customers and following up on service encounters (Brady and Cronin 2001). They will also exhibit behaviors associated with a selling orientation, making an effort to “stimulate demand for services or products being sold” (Huang 2008, p. 462). In doing so, they will dedicate time and resources toward identifying new prospects, cross-selling and upselling to existing customers, and closing sales (Saxe and Weitz 1982). When driven to engage in all of these behaviors simultaneously, it is likely to stretch thin the FLE’s available resources (Becker 1965; Hockey 1997). It is important, therefore, that organizations understand not only the benefits of ambidexterity but the potential costs.

In this research, we draw from JD-R theory to explore how different combinations of customer and selling orientations relate to key performance outcomes. There is considerable ambiguity regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of service-sales ambidexterity. Accordingly, we seek to understand the implications of orientation balance (i.e., level of congruence between the two orientations) and orientation magnitude (i.e., relative strength of the orientations). In doing so, we begin to answer questions related to service-sales ambidexterity effectiveness to determine if and when it is indeed the best approach to frontline management. We find that depending on organizational strategies, and frontline priorities, ambidextrous FLEs may not always be an ideal approach to frontline management. In fact, managers should carefully align frontline orientations with strategic imperatives to maximize FLE efficiencies. For example, when customer service quality (CSQ) is necessary for sustainable performance (e.g., in high-touch industries with longer sales cycles), frontline managers must approach ambidexterity with caution. We find that ambidextrous orientations don’t allow employees to reach peak sales or service potential. For this reason, these employees may not be ideal in focused frontline roles. For example, an ambidextrous employee placed in telemarketing roles will likely fall short of optimal sales goals. In the same way, when placed in prevailing service roles—such as found in the hospitality industry—an ambidextrous orientation could hinder service performance.

On the other hand, ambidextrous orientations drive creativity that can indirectly influence performance when employees are required to sustain balanced sales and service outputs (e.g., within bank branch offices such as those explored by Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013). This is a critical finding as many frontline roles do call for a balance of sales and service activities as opposed to a sole pursuit of sales or service performance. As frontline engagement becomes increasingly solution-driven (Panagopoulos, Rapp, and Ogilvie Forthcoming), customer interactions require not only sales and service capabilities but creativity to adapt offerings and generate value for the customer. In such cases, ambidextrous employees could provide a competitive advantage on the front line. Notably, our findings caution managers to the role conflict that can emerge as employees attempt to sustain ever expanding frontline roles.

Background and Theoretical Development

JD-R Theory

We ground our research in JD-R theory, which maintains that individuals make resource allocation decisions when their job demands exceed existing resources (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). FLEs have limited time during the work day—and within the context of each customer encounter—to achieve multiple functional objectives (Becker 1965; Bergeron 2007; Hockey 1997). In addition, job demands of the work environment such as the “…physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort…” (Demerouti et al. 2001, p. 501), consume resources otherwise directed toward productive work activities. An expanded set of role-related responsibilities—as well as the strain experienced in the process of meeting those responsibilities—can limit the resources available to FLEs. As a consequence, these employees are forced to make decisions about where to allocate their scarce resources.

Fundamentally, multiple workplace orientations can create misalignment (i.e., a selling orientation is misaligned with service objectives, and a customer orientation is misaligned with sales targets). In the presence of misalignment, job demands are likely to exceed resources at a faster rate. Consequently, modifying either demand has the potential to shift performance outcomes. Further, a misalignment can extend beyond firm-level outcomes to impact individual-level outcomes. For example, when job demands exceed resources, this experience can negatively impact employees’ well-being and stress (Demerouti et al. 2001).

The resource trade-offs inherent to time-constrained activities ultimately lead to greater focus on some performance objectives than others. While employees can have a dual focus on service and sales, JD-R theory suggests that there are likely to be performance deficits in one aspect when resources are devoted to the other (Bergeron 2007; Rapp, Bachrach, and Rapp 2013). This trade-off is a result of the physiological and psychological costs associated with too many demands or insufficient resources to meet those demands (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). It also underscores the individual nature of orientations. We believe that employees who simultaneously maintain both orientations may struggle with increasing self-demands (Evans, Arnold, and Grant 1999), making it a challenge to meet specific performance goals (e.g., Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011). In this way, we leverage JD-R theory by weighing employee orientations as demands that compete for limited employee resources.

Competing Orientations and Performance

The way employees define their role has a powerful influence on their actions, behaviors, and ultimately their job performance (Parker 2007). An FLE with a customer orientation tends to engage in functions associated with service provision and satisfying customer needs (Goad and Jaramillo 2014). An FLE with a selling orientation tends to engage in functions associated with selling activities and sales achievement (Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar 1994). These orientations have a significant impact on task-target effort and employee performance (Homburg, Hoyer, and Fassnacht 2002). However, they also require significant time and energy. While certain activities overlap or complement (e.g., Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007), often they may conflict. Not only does this take a toll on individual employees (e.g., Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011), it forces them to make decisions about resource allocation. Given the inherent trade-offs associated with competing outcomes (Bergeron 2007), organizations must understand how different combinations of orientations interact on the front line (Liao and Chuang 2004).

In its simplest form, customer-oriented FLEs devote resources toward satisfying customers. In contrast, selling-oriented FLEs devote resources toward closing sales. These resource decisions, in turn, impact performance outcomes related to these orientations. For example, a high customer orientation but low selling orientation may result in diminished sales performance (Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013). In contrast, a high selling orientation and low customer orientation can result in poor customer service. In either case, firms can experience what Schneider, Paul, and White (1998) describe as “too much of a good thing,” when over emphasis on one orientation comes at the expense of others. Following this rationale, a JD-R lens provide that as levels of customer and selling increase simultaneously, job demands are likely to exceed available resources (Guenzi, De Luca, and Troilo 2011), leading to diminished returns in the opposing performance metric (Boles et al. 2001).

However, given the dual aspects of the boundary-spanning role (Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011), our expectation is that FLEs maintain some degree of both customer and selling orientation. To understand patterns of interaction between customer and selling orientations, we adopt a response surface modeling approach. This technique allows us to identify the slope and curvature of the response surface of key performance outcomes along combinations of customer and selling orientation. We also examine how these competing orientations relate to employees’ role responses to their environment, with a specific focus on role conflict (Jackson and Schuler 1985; Tubre and Collins 2000) and creativity (Wang and Netemeyer 2004). While lines of congruence within the response plane provide implications of balance between orientations, lines of incongruence uncover the impacts of combined orientation magnitude. In this way, we can explore the impact of ambidexterity on service- and sales-specific outcomes as well as employee role responses by highlighting optimal points of balance and magnitude necessary to achieve desired outcomes.

Hypothesis Development

Conceptual Framework

To effectively direct and support the management of FLEs, a conceptual framework is needed that encompasses multiple dimensions of frontline performance. Therefore, we advance a multidimensional model in Figure 1 that explores both role responses and performance outcomes.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Performance Outcomes

Recently, organizations have turned to service-sales ambidexterity as a solution to increasing performance outcomes across both sales and service outcomes. We argue that customer and selling orientations require substantively distinct task foci (e.g., providing customer service vs. making cold calls). This means that simultaneous orientations require significantly greater resources. JD-R suggests that in such cases, demands will likely exceed resources and, ultimately, constrain performance (Hockey 1997; Schmidt and Dolis 2009).

Commitment to service quality has been framed in the literature as the affective desire to improve service quality (Hartline and Ferrell 1996). Peccei and Rosenthal (1997, p. 69) define the construct as “…the relative propensity of a service employee to engage in continuous improvement and exert effort on the job for the benefit of customers.” A core assumption of our model is that customer-service orientation is consistently, positively associated with employee resource allocation toward CSQ behaviors. Thus, we expect that a high customer orientation is positively associated with higher levels of CSQ. However, when selling orientation is also high, resources are diverted away from service and toward selling activities (Bergeron 2007), creating a misalignment. In this context, an increasing dual manifestation of selling orientation within an employee has potential to detract from service, leading to the following:

Hypothesis 1: Commitment to service quality is highest when customer orientation is high and selling orientation is low. The positive relationship weakens as selling orientation increases from low to high.

Sales Performance

Achievement of sales performance (e.g., percent-to-quota, conversion rates, etc.) is driven those behaviors characteristic of a selling orientation (Challagalla and Shervani 1996). Logically, high levels of selling orientation should increase sales performance. However, should customer orientation also be present, employees will be forced to allocate resources to achieve service quality (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Thus, as sales and service demands compete for the same employee resources, we expect that sales performance will decrease. Therefore, we predict a similar but opposite hypothesis to Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 2: Sales performance is highest when selling orientation is high and customer orientation is low. The positive relationship weakens as customer orientation increases.

Role Reponses

A multidimensional understanding of work performance is essential to organizational success (e.g., Anderson and Oliver 1987) as is a full understanding of employee functions (Madhani 2015). Specifically, as employees are asked to balance simultaneous roles (Van Dyne, Jehn, and Cummings 2002), multiple dimensions of workplace performance are affected. In the first dimension, we explored performance outcomes tied to the front line (e.g., commitment to service quality and sales performance). Following JD-R theory, the inherent tension of an ambidextrous orientation will manifest in role responses. We examine role conflict and creativity as two possible responses and suggest managers fully understand the requirements of these dual orientations.

Role Conflict

Ambidexterity requires an active balance between two orientations (Ca et al. 2009). Because orientations inform “beliefs about the breadth and type of responsibilities one has in their role” (Parker 2007, p. 405), balancing dual role orientations should inform employees’ beliefs that they are responsible for a greater breadth and variety of activities within their role. With both customer and selling orientations demanding time and resources, FLEs may perceive high levels of role complexity (Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011). As those demands begin to outweigh resources, employees will feel increased levels of stress (Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke 2004). Eventually, multiple—and potentially competing—expectations require resources which exceed an individual’s capacity (Rapp, Bachrach, and Rapp 2013; Schmidt and Dolis 2009). We suggest this will lead to role conflict, defined as “…the incompatibility of demands facing an individual…” (Tubre and Collins 2000).

JD-R theory suggests that when demands exceed resources, things like job strain, emotional strain, and role stress can increase (Bakker and Demerouti 2007) leading to negative employee outcomes (Bakker et al. 2007), particularly with demanding customers (Agnihotri et al. 2017). When both customer and selling orientations are high, both the breadth and complexity of employee demands increases. If a high combined magnitude of orientations is present (Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang 2009), FLEs may become overloaded with demands that they do not have the resources to satisfy (Schmidt and Dolis 2009). Leveraging House and Rizzo (1972), we offer that the stress within this ambidextrous sales/service role will increase perceptions of role conflict. Formally,

Hypothesis 3: Role conflict is highest when customer and selling orientations are simultaneously high.

Creativity

While JD-R theory suggests possible negative consequences of ambidexterity, it also advocates for positive role responses associated with increased work (Bakker et al. 2007). Organizational literature highlights creativity as one such outcome. Creativity can be defined as “a novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand” (Amabile 1983, p. 360). Literature has established positive individual relationships between both customer and selling orientations and creativity (e.g., Agnihotri et al. 2014). We extend these findings to suggest that there may be an interactive effect of the two orientations on creativity. Simultaneously, high levels of customer and selling orientations constrain available resources. Because resource constraints encourage creativity, ambidextrous employees may be more likely to find creative ways to combine service and selling activities. Alternatively, when employees have low customer or selling orientations (e.g., they are primarily sales or service personnel), they will not be forced to make resource allocation trade-offs, expectations are clearer, and processes are more defined. This limits the need for creativity and the perceived capacity for creative problem-solving in their role.

Essentially, when both orientations are present, FLEs are pushed to do more with the same resources and look for creative solutions to satisfy both sales and service objectives. For example, ambidextrous employees may better identify service activities that can complement and/or support selling activities already being performed. This identification and alteration of behaviors is the crux of service-sales ambidexterity (Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter 2012). We expect that employees with simultaneously high customer and selling orientations will engage in more creative problem-solving, leading to:

Hypothesis 4: Creativity is highest when customer and selling orientations are simultaneously high.

Method

Sample

Our study setting was composed of a business-to-business sales and service force in a U.S.-based firm providing customized solutions for companies within the hospitality industry. Offerings include products, systems, training aids, and services to improve guest satisfaction, operational efficiency, as well as employee and food safety. Employees’ responsibilities are multifaceted as they seek to satisfy sales quotas as well as the customer service expectations of the organization. As a result, employees are forced to allocate resources between activities that help to close sales and activities that foster high levels of customer service. Of course, such environmental demands are translated by individual FLEs into their own personal sales and service orientations and it is these dual orientations and their consequences we study here.

Data were collected from multiple sources. Written survey data were collected from marketing FLEs. In addition, the firm provided job-performance measurements (percent-to-sales-quota figures), which were collected 3–6 months following the completion of the surveys. This time frame has been established as an adequate period within which to evaluate lagged performance models (e.g., Rapp et al. 2010). Employing multisource data also minimizes risks associated with common source biases (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

The employees surveyed held entry-level frontline positions. Employees are assigned to specific customers to whom they provide sales and service support solutions. All employees receive extensive on-the-job training. Each of the firm’s 428 employees was surveyed and 297 (69.4%) usable responses were obtained. Following Armstrong and Overton (1977), we performed wave analysis to assess nonresponse bias and identified no significant differences between early and late respondents.

Measures

All scales were either established or adapted from the literature and have a history of reliability (Appendix). The final questionnaire was discussed with managers to confirm the relevance of the measures to the industry. We assessed customer orientation using 6 items from the needs dimension of customer orientation developed by Harris, Mowen, and Brown (2005; α = .91). Selling orientation (α = .81) was assessed using a 5-item adaptation of Saxe and Weitz’s (1982) scale.

Commitment to service quality (α = .93) was assessed using 9 items from Schwepker and Hartline (2005) on a 5-point scale. We assessed the ultimate sales criterion in our model, sales performance, as percent-to-quota (Churchill et al. 1985). Based on potential predictors of a territory (e.g., number of customers, size of territory), an independent service firm sets the quota for each year and all products within a given territory. Territory sales are then divided by this quota to obtain a percent-to-quota, which is the mechanism used to assess employees’ sales performance. The percent-to-quota metric is closely monitored by the company. It allows for the evaluation of performance, while controlling for extraneous factors such as territory size (Churchill et al. 1985).

Role conflict was measured using 6 items adapted from the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman’s (1970) scale and was conceptualized as the extent of misalignment in employees’ perceived role (α = .81). Creativity was assessed using a 7-item scale adapted from Wang and Netemeyer (2004). We conceptualize creativity as employees’ ability to find creative solutions in customer and selling related tasks (α = .84).

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations for all constructs. We find a significant negative correlation (r = −.11, p < .05) between selling and customer orientation. The correlation between customer orientation and commitment to service quality was significant and positive (r = .30, p < .01). Further, selling orientation was significantly related to sales performance (r = .23, p < .01) and significantly and negatively related to commitment to service quality (r = −.15, p < .05). Interestingly, both customer orientation and selling orientation had significant and positive relationships with employee creativity (r = .18 and .20, respectively, p < .01). Next we turn to an investigation of these relationships and their interactions.

Table 1.

Intercorrelation Matrix of Constructs.

Construct	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Customer orientation	5.06	1.16
Selling orientation	4.06	1.09	−.11*
Commitment to service quality	2.92	0.63	.30**	−.15*
Sales performance	95.73	47.75	−.06	.23**	−.10
Role conflict	3.43	1.20	−.10	.29**	−.07	−.09
Creativity	5.98	1.05	.18**	.20**	−.02	.18**	−.08

Note. N = 297. SD = standard deviation.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Statistical Analyses

Our hypotheses explore the three-dimensional relationships between customer and selling orientation and employee commitment to service quality and sales performance. This framing points to the relevance of understanding relationships across a response surface made up of service-sales interaction points, specifically evaluating interactions among these variables along lines of congruence and incongruence on a response surface (for a review, see Edwards 1994). Importantly, we follow the literature and approach customer and selling orientations as distinct constructs (Harris, Mowen, and Brown 2005), which may either complement one another (Gwinner et al. 2005) or compete for scarce resources.

Given our relationships of interest, polynomial regression with response surface methodology is the ideal analytical approach (Edwards 1994). In this study, we use employee customer- and selling-orientation measures and their squares and product to predict individual customer and sales performance. The following quadratic equation is used:

Z = b_{0} + b_{1} X + b_{2} Y + b_{3} X^{2} + b_{4} X Y + b_{5} Y^{2} + ε_{0} .

In this equation, X represents employee assessment of customer orientation, Y represents employee assessment of selling orientation, and Z represents the outcomes of our four hypotheses (i.e., commitment to service quality, sales performance, role conflict, and creativity). The outcome variable is regressed on each of the two predictors, their interaction, and the squared term of each predictor (Shanock et al. 2010). Using this equation, we can test the shape of the response surface along lines of interest (e.g., line of congruence and line of incongruence), controlling for higher order terms.

Support for each quadratic regression model can be inferred if the R ² associated with the appropriate coefficient is significant (Edwards 1994). Regression coefficients from the four equations are not interpreted directly (Shanock et al. 2010) but are used to examine the response surface pattern (Edwards 1994). We do this by interpreting the slope and curvature of two lines in particular—the line of congruence (or perfect agreement where X = Y) and the line of incongruence (or line of discrepancy where X = −Y).

The line of congruence represents a “line of perfect agreement” and depicts specifically X = Y. By considering the slope of this line of congruence, we can determine how agreement between the two predictor variables is related to our outcome of interest (Shanock et al. 2010). Similar to work conducted by Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang (2009), this line represents the balanced dimension of ambidexterity. In our study, congruence signifies a balance in employee customer and selling orientations along a continuum from low to high. This is a line of interest in our study as its slope (depicted by a ₁ in Table 2) represents the effects of both high customer and selling orientations on employee outcomes. The curvature along this line (depicted by a ₂ in Table 2) is used to determine whether the relationship is linear or nonlinear.

Table 2.

Results From Polynomial Regressions and Response Surface Analysis.

Outcome = β₀ + β₁(CustOrient) + β₂(SellOrient) + β₃(CustOrient²) + β₄(CustOrient × SellOrient) + β₅(SellOrient²) + e
Construct	Commitment to Service Quality	Sales Performance	Role Conflict	Creativity
Constant	2.65 (.05)**	87.49 (3.05)**	3.59 (.98)**	5.83 (.09)**
Customer orientation	0.22 (.05)**	2.31 (3.10)	−0.12 (.10)	−0.35 (.09)**
Selling orientation	−0.07 (.04)	22.62 (2.57)**	0.01 (.08)	0.25 (.08)**
Customer orientation squared	−0.03 (.02)	0.44 (1.25)	−0.02 (.04)	−0.08 (.04)*
Customer Orientation × Selling Orientation	−0.04 (.03)	−6.26 (1.45)**	0.27 (.05)**	−0.01 (.04)
Selling orientation squared	0.09 (.02)**	−3.10 (1.15)**	0.03 (.04)	−0.02 (.03)
R ²	0.16**	0.29**	0.19**	0.10**
Adjusted R ²	0.15	0.28	0.18	0.09
Surface tests
a ₁	0.15*	24.93**	−0.11	0.60**
a ₂	0.01	−2.73	0.28**	−0.11
a ₃	0.28**	−20.32**	−0.13	−0.09
a ₄	0.10**	9.79**	−0.26**	−0.10

Note. N = 297. Value for surface tests: a ₁ = b ₁ + b ₂; a ₂ = b ₃ + b ₄ + b ₅; a ₃ = b ₁ − b ₂; and a ₄ = b ₃ − b ₄ + b ₅, where a ₁ = slope of the line of congruence (If the value is positive, the outcome variable increases as the predictor variables increase. If the value is negative, the outcome variable decreases as the predictor variables increase); a ₂ = curvature of the line of congruence (significant value represents a nonlinear relationship such that a positive a ₂ suggests a convex surface and a negative a ₂ suggests a concave surface along the line of congruence); a ₃ = slope of the line of incongruence (A significant positive value indicates that the outcome variable is higher when X > Y than vice versa. A significant negative value indicates that the outcome variable is higher when Y > X than vice versa); and a ₄ = curvature of the line of incongruence (significant value represents a nonlinear relationship such that a positive a ₄ suggests a convex surface [outcomes increase more sharply as degree of discrepancy between X and Y increases] and a negative a ₄ suggests a concave surface [outcomes decrease more sharply as degree of discrepancy between X and Y increases]).

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Perpendicular to the line of congruence is the line of incongruence. The line of incongruence depicts X = −Y or instances in which the predictor variables are not in agreement. By considering the curvature of this line of incongruence (depicted by a ₄ in Table 2), we can determine how the degree of discrepancy between the two predictor variables is related to our outcome of interest. Similar to research in organizational ambidexterity (e.g., Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang 2009), the line of incongruence reflects the relative magnitude of each orientation. If this value is significant, it implies that a nonlinear relationship is present between the discrepancy of the two predictors and the outcome variable. A significant and positive value indicates a convex surface, meaning that as the discrepancy increases (i.e., as values of customer orientation and selling orientation diverge), the value of the outcome increases more sharply. A significant negative value of a ₄ indicates a concave surface, as the predictor variables diverge the related value of the focal outcome decrease more sharply.

The slope along the line of incongruence (depicted by a ₃ in Table 2) indicates how the direction of discrepancy relates to the focal outcome. What this means is that the outcome may potentially be affected more when the discrepancy occurs in a specific direction (Shanock et al. 2010). Specific to our study, this slope allows us to examine the extent to which combinations of high and low customer and selling orientations impact the outcome of interest. For example, a significant negative value for a ₃ implies that the outcome variable is higher when a discrepancy is present, such that, selling orientation (Y) is higher than customer orientation (X). A significant positive value suggests the opposite. The plots for all four response surfaces are shown in Figures 2 –5.

Figure 2.

Response surface: Commitment to service quality. The response surface illustrates the predicted values of the outcome variable (commitment to service quality) for each combination of the two predictor variables (customer [X] and selling [Y] orientation) based on the corresponding polynomial regression equation and associated unstandardized β weights in Table 2. Different surface shading is used as a visual aid to show natural breaks in levels of the outcome variable (e.g., in the figure, the graph shading changes when the values reach Z ≥ 2 and changes again when the values reach Z ≥ 3 to make visual interpretation easier). These shading changes should not be interpreted beyond their reference to value levels of the outcome variable (Z). Additionally, illustrations of the line of congruence and line of incongruence represented by the solid red line and dashed red line, respectively, can be found in the figure. The line of congruence stretches from (−4, −4) to (4, 4) and is assessed on slope (a ₁) and curvature (a ₂). The line of incongruence stretches from (−4, 4) to (4, −4) and is assessed on slope (a ₃) and curvature (a ₄). Description of the implications of these surface test can be found in detail in the text.

Figure 3.

Response surface: Sales performance.

Figure 4.

Response surface: Role conflict.

Figure 5.

Response surface: Creativity.

Response Surface Analysis

Commitment to service quality

Variance explained in commitment to service quality by employee orientations was significant, and the higher order model explained significant incremental variance (p < .05) beyond the linear effects model. Hypothesis 1 predicts that commitment to service quality increases as customer orientation increases and selling orientation decreases. To examine this relationship, we focus on the slope and curvature of the response surface along the line of incongruence (X = −Y), with specific attention to the direction of discrepancy (a ₃). There is a significant positive curvature along the line of incongruence on the response surface (a ₄ = .102, p < .01), indicating that commitment to service quality is higher when discrepancy is present. The positive and significant direction of the discrepancy (a ₃ = .284, p < .01) supports the prediction in Hypothesis 1 that commitment to service quality is highest when customer orientation (X) is high and selling orientation (Y) is low.

Sales performance

The incremental variance explained in sales performance was significant (p < .05) beyond that which was accounted for by the linear effects model. Hypothesis 2 predicts that sales performance is highest when selling orientation is high and customer orientation is low. Along the line of incongruence, a significant and negative slope (a ₃ = −20.32, p < .01) suggests that sales performance increases as the discrepancy between orientations increases, such that selling orientation is greater than customer orientation, providing support for Hypothesis 2.

Role conflict

Variance in role conflict explained by employee orientations was significant; the higher order model explained significant additional variance (p < .01) beyond the linear effects model. The response surface for employee customer and selling orientation predicting role conflict was saddle-shaped with the stationary point located at X ₀ = −.12 and Y ₀ = .43. The stationary point in a saddle-shaped surface represents the point at which the response surface is flat (Edwards 2002).

Hypothesis 3 predicts that role conflict increases as customer and selling orientation increase in symmetry, such that role conflict is highest when both customer and selling orientation are high. Thus, we examine the line of congruence. While we predicted a positive slope along the line of congruence (with role conflict being highest when customer and selling orientations are simultaneously high), we do not find a significant value for a ₁ (−.11, p >.10). Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is not supported.

However, analysis of the response surface indicates a significant curvature along the X = Y line (a ₂ = .28, p < .01), suggesting a nonlinear relationship with role conflict. As can be seen in Figure 4, role conflict is highest when both customer and selling orientations are high and when both customer and selling orientations are low. Contrary to our expectation, role conflict decreases along the response surface moving from low dual orientation to moderate dual orientation. At this point, the relationship changes and role conflict starts to increase. The U-shaped relationship along the line of congruence, therefore, provides partial support for our expectations. As customer and selling orientations increase from moderate to high levels, the slope of the X = Y line is positive and role conflict increases.

Notably, significant curvature (a ₄ = .26, p < .01) along the line of incongruence (X = −Y) suggests that role conflict is lowest when customer orientation is high and selling orientation is low. This means that role conflict decreases as the discrepancy between orientations increases. This demonstrates (as can been seen in Figure 4) that role conflict is lowest when employees have one strong orientation, and conflict increases as multiple orientations are maintained simultaneously. Yet, our results along the line of congruence indicate that role conflict can be present when neither orientation is high. So, employees with both low customer and selling orientations perceive greater role conflict than those with simultaneously moderate orientations. This signals that role stress may occur when employees lack any direction (Tubre and Collins 2000) and speaks to the importance of role direction and clarity.

Creativity

The variance in creativity explained by employee orientations also was significant, and the higher order model explained significant incremental variance (p < .05) beyond the linear effects model. Hypothesis 4 predicts that a positive slope along the line of congruence such that creativity will increase as both orientations simultaneously increase. The slope of the surface along the line of congruence was significant and positive (a ₁ = .601, p < .01). This suggests that as customer and selling orientations simultaneously increase, employee creativity increases, providing support for Hypothesis 4. A summary of all hypothesis results and evaluation criteria can be found in Table 3.

Table 3.

Summary of Hypotheses, Evaluation Criteria, and Results.

Hypotheses		Response Surface Line of Interest	Evaluation Criteria	Results Analyzed	Outcome
Hypothesis 1	Commitment to service quality is highest when customer orientation is high and selling orientation is low	Line of incongruence	Positive a ₃	a ₃ = .284, p < .01	Supported
Hypothesis 2	Sales performance is highest when selling orientation is high and customer orientation is low	Line of incongruence	Negative a ₃	a ₃ = −20.32, p < .01	Supported
Hypothesis 3	Role conflict increases as customer and selling orientations increase simultaneously	Line of congruence	Positive a ₁	a ₁ = −.11, p >.10 (ns)	Not supported
Hypothesis 4	Creativity increases as customer and selling orientations increase simultaneously	Line of congruence	Positive a ₁	a ₁ = .601, p < .01	Supported

Note. Surface test values: a ₁ = b ₁ + b ₂; a ₂ = b ₃ + b ₄ + b ₅; a ₃ = b ₁ − b ₂; and a ₄ = b ₃ − b ₄ + b ₅ (corresponding β weights can be found in Table 2).

^aHigher order model did not explain significant additional variance, thus polynomial regression results were not interpretable.

Discussion

In this study, we set out to investigate the dual—and potentially competing—orientations that face FLEs. We systematically evaluate how customer and selling orientations relate to specific performance outcomes. Understanding the interaction of service and sales demands within organizations is of increasing relevance in marketing contexts (Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter 2012; Schmidt and Dolis 2009; Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013). As more and more organizations impose dual expectations, employees can often be left with insufficient resources to satisfy both. With this focus, we offer a more nuanced approach to understanding service-sales ambidexterity as seen in Table 4. Employing polynomial regression and response surface analysis, we examine the slope and curvature of the customer and selling orientation response surfaces relating to role conflict, commitment to service quality, creativity, and performance.

Table 4.

Summary of Results Interpretation.

Customer Orientation
		Low	High
Selling orientation	Low High
		Key findings	Key findings
		High levels of sales performance	High levels of role conflict
		High levels of sales performance	High levels of creativity
		Emphasis on sales-focused activities that directly impact individual performance and sales revenue generation	Role becomes more ambiguous which provides opportunities for creative problem-solving but also challenges managers to support employees to reduce negative effects associated with perceived conflict between orientations.
		Managerial implications	Managerial implications
		When short-term revenue generation goals are paramount, success will be driven by transactional approaches to customer interactions. Revenue generation is focused on short sales cycles and high volumes of customer interactions.	Benefits organizations operating in environments that demand innovation and adaptability in frontline employees
		Key findings	Key findings
		Increasing levels of role conflict	Increasing levels of customer service quality
		Low sales and service outcomes	Moderate sales performance
		Low levels of creativity	Moderate sales performance
		Role is ambiguous and employees have little direction or drive to put effort toward frontline activities	Emphasis on customer-focused activities that drive service value creation. Employees are compelled to provide high-level service and build long-term relationships with customers.
		Managerial implications	Managerial implications
		Creates challenges for frontline managers to motivate employees to engage in value adding behaviors when internal orientations do not exist to motivate action	Similar to traditional professional service roles, these employees will excel in cultivating long-term relationships with customers and will generate value based on a “farmer” approach to sales performance

Summary of Key Findings

Table 4 contains a visual summary of the key findings, which we outline below.

Commitment to service quality

A customer orientation reflects a commitment to meet customer needs. Our results suggest that employees’ commitment to service quality increases as they move toward customer orientation and away from selling orientation.

Sales performance

JD-R theory suggests that employees focused primarily on sales quotas are less likely to devote resources toward customer service. Accordingly, our response surface indicates that sales performance increases as employees become more sales-oriented.

Role conflict

JD-R theory provides that with simultaneously high customer and selling orientations, employees can be left with insufficient resources to satisfy competing performance expectations. A customer orientation can be resource intensive (e.g., Kumar, Venkatesan, and Reinartz 2008) and have a negative impact on the selling function (Homburg, Muller, and Klarmann 2011). As evidenced by our study, service-sales ambidexterity can impact role perceptions through an increase in role conflict.

However, we also find that the relationship between orientations and role conflict was nonlinear and convex, meaning that role conflict also increases when both orientations are low. This pattern of interaction suggests that employees can perceive conflict with respect to their role demands not only when maintaining simultaneously high sales and service orientations (high/high) but also while maintaining simultaneously low sales and service orientations (low/low).

Creativity

Competing orientations require employees to generate alternative approaches to manage their resources. Results from our analyses indicate that when both orientations are high, creativity also tends to be high. This pattern of interaction suggests that as either customer or selling orientation—or both—becomes stronger, employees are more likely to find creative solutions to meet the complex demands of their roles. Thus, the stronger these orientations, either individually or cooperatively, the more likely FLEs are to leverage their creativity.

Theoretical Implications

Scholars have yet to fully identify the functional boundaries and implications of a customer orientation on FLE behavior. In Figure 1, we adopt a multifaceted approach, as suggested by Schwepker (2003), leveraging service-sales ambidexterity as the foundational construct for understanding the interaction between service and sales orientations. It is apparent that some degree of both customer and selling orientation is necessary within the context of customer interactions. While service and sales activities can be complementary (Ahearne, Jelinek, and Jones 2007), inherent trade-offs exist (Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter 2012). Understanding these trade-offs and potential combinative effects advances exploration of service-sales ambidexterity.

Working within the JD-R framework, Table 4 helps deepen our understanding of how employee orientations impact not just performance metrics but role responses as well. Specifically, we identify both benefits (e.g., creativity) and pitfalls (e.g., role conflict) of service-sales ambidexterity. Consider the increase in role conflict when employees have both low customer and selling orientations. These employees essentially feel no demands to sell or serve, and this lack of direction as to where they should devote resources results in role stress. This manifested as role conflict as FLEs attempted to reconcile which tasks were most personally relevant. The takeaway here is that without clear expectations, both sales and service performance can ultimately suffer. This implies that role underload also may be a threat to FLEs. While not hypothesized in the current study, we can infer from our role conflict response surface that the absence of a clear orientation may in fact lead to workplace stress that draws down the limited resources of FLEs and impacts their JD-R balance.

Managerial Implications

As Table 4 demonstrates, sales and service roles carry unique expectations and demands that can compete for employee time and resources that can make frontline ambidexterity a difficult balancing act. Managers tasked with motivating both service and sales imperatives must consider the implications of designing programs to do both. For example, in highly turbulent or competitive industries, creative customer solutions represent a substantive competitive advantage that is difficult for competitors to replicate (Agnihotri et al. 2014). In our study, FLEs were most creative at high levels of both customer and selling orientation.

As noted, however, our analysis also reveals negative implications. When role demands exceed available resources, employees are forced to make trade-offs (Bergeron 2007). This results in role conflict, which can lead to employee turnover (Jackson and Schuler 1985). Our results suggest that to avoid role conflict, managers should identify, hire, orient, and coach their employees to achieve desired outcomes. For instance, when sales is a priority, managers can shift the focus to upselling or cross-selling techniques. If building relationships becomes a priority, managers can devote resources toward relationship management training and CRM tools. The most effective technique, though, may be creation of an organizational climate supportive of specific outcomes. Simply making priorities clear to employees may help prevent role conflict. If FLEs sense a change in the organizational climate that values one performance metric over another, they might modify their personal orientation to coincide with this climate.

Finally, while not a perfect strategy, ambidexterity could be crucial in complex sales cycles as well as any selling situation that involves highly customized products or high service demands. In these situations, managers want employees to have high levels of both selling and service orientations because they are more likely to find creative customer solutions. However, firms also should consider supplemental support for these high-performing FLEs. For instance, managers can provide a team to handle the closing details of a sale or a customer service representative to follow-up on key accounts. Anything that fosters the development of truly capable ambidextrous FLEs may serve the entire organization well in the long run. Thus, it may help productivity to shift administrative tasks to other personnel—specifically, those employees who are not able to successfully juggle multiple demands.

Limitations and Future Research

FLE ambidexterity remains relatively new to the service literature. While in the current study we seek to advance the understanding of simultaneous service and sales orientations, the conclusions we draw should be contextualized against limitations of our design. First, while employee orientations inform patterns of behaviors, employees may not necessarily engage in these behaviors. Additionally, the responses gathered from employees concerning our predictor variables were self-assessed and cross-sectional. This limits our ability to draw robust conclusions of causality. Similarly, a more objective performance indicator would allow us to draw explicit conclusions.

Another limitation is the nature of transparency in sales and service outcomes within organizations. Specifically, customer service objectives are not as easily measured as sales objectives. In our sample, employees were aware of their sales targets and customer service expectations, but it is possible that the nature of the percent-to-quota metric influenced their tendency toward selling versus service-related activities. Future studies should control for this by utilizing samples that are either unaware of specific selling or service metrics or samples that have clear metrics for both. Further, the selling orientation measure used here could perhaps be adjusted to mirror the customer orientation measure and allow for more direct comparisons.

Finally, as we note from the outset, this research is largely exploratory, testing multiple service and sales outcomes associated with customer and selling orientations. Figure 1 represents a simple conceptual framework which future researchers could use to examine constructs not explored here. Building from the results in Table 4, it will be important for future scholars to investigate the optimal orientation configurations across a wider range of employee (e.g., age, experience, and tenure) and organizational (e.g., industry turbulence, competitiveness) parameters. It will also be important to explore contextual boundaries of these relationships, and the extent to which these relationships are subject to employee characteristics, organizational climates, or managerial influences. Competing orientations are a reality in today’s competitive landscape. Insight into the effective implementation of FLE ambidexterity is likely to remain a strategic imperative into the foreseeable future.

Finally, as the notion of ambidexterity continues to expand into the frontline literature, it will be important to consider the notions of structural versus contextual ambidexterity and the implications this may have on the front line as it relates to individual versus team-based customer management. For example, our research finds that peak performance outcomes are achieved when employees are focused on either sales or service roles. With this in mind, it may be beneficial to organizations to manage frontline interactions with a sales and service team representative of a structural approach to service-sales ambidexterity. However, this introduces more traditional frontline concerns related to sales and service silos, lack of communication and consistency across customer interactions, and negative implications of multiple frontline touchpoints. With these questions in mind, future research should explore the benefits and pitfalls of ambidextrous teams versus individual employees attempting to achieve service-sales ambidexterity.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary material for this article is available online.

References

Agnihotri

Raj

Fernando

Jorge

Gabler

Colin B.

Itani

Omar

Krush

Michael

(2017), “Salesperson Ambidexterity and Customer Satisfaction: Examining the Role of Customer Demandingness, Adaptive Selling, and Role Conflict,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 37 (1), 27–41.

Agnihotri

Raj

Rapp

Adam

Andzulis

James ‘Mick’

Gabler

Colin B.

(2014), “Examining the Drivers and Performance Implications of Boundary Spanner Creativity,” Journal of Service Research, 17 (2), 164–181.

Ahearne

Michael

Jelinek

Ronald

Jones

Eli

(2007), “Examining the Effect of Salesperson Service Behavior in a Competitive Context,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (4), 603–616.

Amabile

Teresa M.

(1983), “The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 (2), 357–376.

Anderson

Erin

Oliver

Richard L.

(1987), “Perspectives on Behavior-Based versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (4), 76–88.

Armstrong

J. Scott

Overton

Terry S.

(1977), “Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys,” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 396–402.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evangelia

(2014), “Job Demands–Resources Theory.” Work and Wellbeing: Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide, Chen

Cooper

, eds. III. John Wiley & Sons, LTd, 3–28.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evanelia

(2007), “The Job Demands–Resources Model: State of the Art,” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (3), 309–328.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Hakanen

Jari J.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Xanthopoulou

Despoina

(2007), “Job Resources Boost Work Engagement, Particularly When Job Demands Are High,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (2), 274–284.

10.

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Verbeke

Willem

(2004), “Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Burnout and Performance,” Human Resource Management, 43 (1), 83–104.

11.

Becker

Gary S.

(1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time,” Economic Journal, 75 (September), 493–517.

12.

Bergeron

Diane M.

(2007), “The Potential Paradox of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Good Citizens at What Cost?” Academy of Management Review, 32 (4), 1078–1095.

13.

Boles

James S.

Babin

Barry J.

Brashear

Thomas G.

Brooks

Charles

(2001), “An Examination of the Relationships between Retail Work Environments, Salesperson Selling Orientation-Customer Orientation and Job Performance,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9 (3), 1–13.

14.

Bowen

David E.

Schneider

Benjamin

(2014), “A Service Climate Synthesis and Future Research Agenda,” Journal of Service Research, 17 (1), 5–22.

15.

Brady

Michael K.

Joseph Cronin

Jr . (2001), “Some New Thoughts on Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (3), 34–49.

16.

Cao

Qing

Gedajlovic

Eric

Zhang

Hongping

(2009), “Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects,” Organization Science, 20 (4), 781–796.

17.

Challagalla

Goutam N.

Shervani

Tasadduq A.

(1996), “Dimensions and Types of Supervisory Control: Effects on Salesperson Performance and Satisfaction,” The Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 89–105.

18.

Churchill

Gilbert A.

Jr Ford

Neil M.

Hartley

Steven W.

Walker

Orville C.

Jr . (1985), “The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (2), 103–118.

19.

Crawford

Eean R.

LePine

Jeffery A.

Rich

Bruce Louis

(2010), “Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (5), 834–848.

20.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Bakker

Arnold B.

Nachreiner

Friedhelm

Schaufeli

Wilmar

(2001), “The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 499–512.

21.

Edwards

Jeffrey R.

(2002), “Alternatives to Difference Scores: Polynomial Regression and Response Surface Methodology,” Advances in Measurement and Data Analysis, Drasgow

Schmitt

N.W.

, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 350–400.

22.

Edwards

Jeffrey R.

(1994), “Regression Analysis as an Alternative to Difference Scores,” Journal of Management, 20 (3), 683–689.

23.

Evans

Kenneth R.

Arnold

Todd J.

Grant

John A.

(1999), “Combining Service and Sales at the Point of Customer Contact A Retail Banking Example,” Journal of Service Research, 2 (1), 34–49.

24.

Goad

Emily A.

Jaramillo

Fernando

(2014), “The Good, the Bad and the Effective: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Selling Orientation and Customer Orientation on Sales Performance,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 34 (4), 285–301.

25.

Guenzi

Paolo

Luca

Luigi M. De

Troilo

Gabriele

(2011), “Organizational Drivers of Salespeople’s Customer Orientation and Selling Orientation,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31 (3), 269–285.

26.

Gwinner

Kevin P.

Bitner

Mary J.

Brown

Stephen W.

Kumar

Ajith

(2005), “Service Customization through Employee Adaptiveness,” Journal of Service Research, 8 (2), 131–148.

27.

Harris

Eric G.

Mowen

John C.

Brown

Tom J.

(2005), “Re-Examining Salesperson Goal Orientations: Personality Influencers, Customer Orientation, and Work Satisfaction,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (1), 19–35.

28.

Hartline

Michael D.

Ferrell

Orville C.

(1996), “The Management of Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation.” The Journal of Marketing, 60 (4), 52–70.

29.

Hockey

G. Robert J.

(1997), “Compensatory Control in the Regulation of Human Performance under Stress and High Workload: A Cognitive-Energetical Framework,” Biological Psychology, 45 (1), 73–93.

30.

Homburg

Christian

Müller

Michael

Klarmann

Martin

(2011), “When Should the Customer Really Be King? On the Optimum Level of Salesperson Customer Orientation in Sales Encounters,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (2), 55–74.

31.

Homburg

Christian

Hoyer

Wayne D.

Fassnacht

Martin

(2002), “Service Orientation of a Retailer’s Business Strategy: Dimensions, Antecedents, and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 86–101.

32.

House

Robert J.

Rizzo

John R.

(1972), “Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Critical Variables in a Model of Organizational Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7 (3), 467–505.

33.

Huang

Min-Hsin

(2008), “The Influence of Selling Behaviors on Customer Relationships in Financial Services,” International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19 (4), 458–473.

34.

Jackson

Susan E.

Schuler

Randall S.

(1985), “A Meta-Analysis and Conceptual Critique of Research on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict in Work Settings,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36 (1), 16–78.

35.

Jasmand

Claudia

Blazevic

Vera

de Ruyter

(2012), “Generating Sales While Providing Service: A Study of Customer Service Representatives’ Ambidextrous Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (1), 20–37.

36.

Jones

Eli

Brown

Steven P.

Zoltners

Andris A.

Weitz

Barton A.

(2005), “The Changing Environment of Selling and Sales Management,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25 (2), 105–111.

37.

Kumar

Venkatesan

Rajkumar

Reinartz

Werner

(2008), “Performance Implications of Adopting a Customer-Focused Sales Campaign,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (5), 50–68.

38.

Liao

Hui

Chuang

Aichia

(2004), “A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee Service Performance and Customer Outcomes,” Academy of Management Journal, 47 (1), 41–58.

39.

Madhani

Pankaj M.

(2015), “Managing Salesforce Performance Behavior versus Outcome Measures,” Compensation & Benefits Review, 47 (2), 1–10. doi:10.1177/0886368715581959.

40.

Madjar

Nora

Shalley

Christina E.

(2008), “Multiple Tasks’ and Multiple Goals’ Effect on Creativity: Forced Incubation or Just a Distraction?” Journal of Management, 34 (7), 786–805.

41.

Panagopoulos

Nikolaos G.

Rapp

Adam A.

Ogilvie

Jessica

(Forthcoming), “Salesperson Solution Selling and Sales Performance: The Contingent Role of Supplier Firm and Customer-Supplier Relationship Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing.

42.

Parker

Sharon K.

(2007), “‘That Is My Job’ How Employees’ Role Orientation Affects Their Job Performance,” Human Relations, 60 (3), 403–434.

43.

Peccei

Riccardo

Rosenthal

Patrice

(1997), “The Antecedents of Employee Commitment to Customer Service: Evidence from a UK Service Context,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8 (1), 66–86.

44.

Podsakoff

Philip M.

MacKenzie

Scott B.

Lee

Jeong-Yeon

Podsakoff

Nathan P.

(2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903.

45.

Rapp

Adam

Bachrach

Daniel G.

Rapp

Tammy L.

(2013), “The Influence of Time Management Skill on the Curvilinear Relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Task Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (4), 668–777.

46.

Rapp

Adam

Ahearne

Michael

Mathieu

John

Rapp

Tammy

(2010). “Managing Sales Teams in a Virtual Environment.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (3), 213–224.

47.

Rizzo

John R.

House

Robert J.

Lirtzman

Sidney I.

(1970), “Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 15 (2), 150–163.

48.

Saxe

Robert

Weitz

Barton A.

(1982), “The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (3), 343–351.

49.

Schmidt

Aaron M.

Dolis

Chad M.

(2009), “Something’s Got to Give: The Effects of Dual-Goal Difficulty, Goal Progress, and Expectancies on Resource Allocation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (3), 678–691.

50.

Schneider

Benjamin

Paul

Michele C.

White

Susan S.

(1998), “Too Much of a Good Thing: A Multiple-Constituency Perspective on Service Organization Effectiveness,” Journal of Service Research, 1 (1), 93–102.

51.

Schwepker

Charles H.

Jr Hartline

Michael D.

(2005), “Managing the Ethical Climate of Customer-Contact Service Employees,” Journal of Service Research, 7 (4), 377–397.

52.

Schwepker

Charles H.

Jr . (2003), “Customer-Oriented Selling: A Review, Extension, and Directions for Future Research,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23 (2), 151–171.

53.

Shanock

Linda Rhoades

Baran

Benjamin E.

Gentry

William A.

Pattison

Stacy Clever

Heggestad

Eric D.

(2010), “Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis: A Powerful Approach for Examining Moderation and Overcoming Limitations of Difference Scores,” Journal of Business and Psychology, 25 (4), 543–554.

54.

Sujan

Harish

Weitz

Barton A.

Kumar

Nirmalya

(1994), “Learning Orientation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling,” The Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 39–52.

55.

Tubre

Travis C.

Collins

Judith M.

(2000), “Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance,” Journal of management, 26 (1), 155–169.

56.

Van Dyne

Linn

Jehn

Karen A.

Cummings

Anne

(2002), “Differential Effects of Strain on Two Forms of Work Performance: Individual Employee Sales and Creativity,” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (11), 57–74.

57.

Wang

Guangping

Netemeyer

Richard G.

(2004), “Salesperson Creative Performance: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Validity,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 805–812.

58.

Xanthopoulou

Despoina

Bakker

Arnold B.

Demerouti

Evangelia

Schaufeli

Wilmar B.

(2007), “The Role of Personal Resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model,” International Journal of Stress Management, 14 (2), 121–141.

59.

Ting

Patterson

Paul G.

de Ruyter

(2013), “Achieving Service-Sales Ambidexterity,” Journal of Service Research, 16 (1), 52–66.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB